Appeal allowed, order quashed, case remitted with fresh directions.

The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was quashed. The matter was remitted to respondent no. 1, with directions to proceed afresh only after issuing the show cause notice to appellant no. 1 and respondent no. 2. Adequate time was to be granted to the appellants to file their objections/reply, and any application for supply of documents was to be dealt with in accordance with law. Any order passed by respondent no. 1 was to be passed on a working day. Parties were directed to bear their own costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Adequate and proper opportunity of hearing.
2. Denial of request for further documents.
3. Jurisdiction of FMC to issue the show cause notice under the FCR Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Adequate and Proper Opportunity of Hearing:
The appellants contended that they were not granted adequate and proper opportunity of hearing before the impugned order was passed. It was noted that appellant no. 1 and respondent no. 2 were not issued any show cause notice, a fact conceded by respondent no. 1 before the Gujarat High Court. The Tribunal found that since the impugned order contained various directions against appellant no. 1 and respondent no. 2, the order could not be sustained due to the violation of principles of natural justice. It was emphasized that no direction can be issued to a party to whom a show cause notice has not been issued by FMC. Consequently, the impugned order was quashed insofar as appellant no. 1 is concerned.

2. Denial of Request for Further Documents:
Appellant no. 2 requested certain documents which were reflected in the show cause notice. Although some documents were supplied on July 5, 2011, the request for additional documents was denied on the grounds that they were not relied upon by the respondent. The Tribunal highlighted that the Gujarat High Court had directed respondent no. 1 to supply all the documents to the appellants on payment of usual charges. The hearing was adjourned multiple times, and the request for further time to place written submissions was granted till July 20, 2011. However, the request for adjournment on July 20, 2011 was rejected, which the Tribunal found unreasonable considering the voluminous documents involved. The Tribunal concluded that no reasonable opportunity was given to appellant no. 2 for filing objections/reply to the show cause notice.

3. Jurisdiction of FMC to Issue the Show Cause Notice:
The appellants argued that FMC had no jurisdiction or authority to issue the show cause notice under the FCR Act. The Tribunal noted that the issue of jurisdiction was raised before the Gujarat High Court, and the appellants' request to allow an advocate to address the question of jurisdiction was rejected by FMC. The Tribunal found that the rejection of the request for an adjournment to address the jurisdiction issue was violative of the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the impugned order against appellant no. 2 was quashed. The Tribunal decided that it was not necessary to go into the question of jurisdiction since the order was quashed on account of the violation of principles of natural justice.

Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was quashed. The matter was remitted to respondent no. 1, with directions to proceed afresh only after issuing the show cause notice to appellant no. 1 and respondent no. 2. Adequate time was to be granted to the appellants to file their objections/reply, and any application for supply of documents was to be dealt with in accordance with law. Any order passed by respondent no. 1 was to be passed on a working day. Parties were directed to bear their own costs.

---